Commission told legal view on gillnet reentry is informal; some members say briefing book lacked disclosure

Commissioners debated whether the public briefing materials should have included information that a legal interpretation about reentry of gillnets would be discussed at the next meeting. One commissioner asked that the public be told what the legal interpretation would mean for nets and fishing access.

Phillip Reynolds, from the Attorney General's office, told the commission his remarks should not be taken as a formal advisory opinion unless the commission asks for one. "I will put it in writing, but the writing will be this is what the motion says, period," Reynolds said, adding that he can provide a short written statement if the commission requests a formal advisory opinion. He emphasized he had not intended to produce a long legal memorandum for the briefing book.

Commissioners and staff said staff will present the scientific data and the division will provide its analysis tomorrow; several members requested more background documentation so the commission and the public can review the evidence before any action is taken. One commissioner said the public briefing package lacked explicit material stating what the legal interpretation and its consequences would be, and asked staff to include those results or clearer signposting in the materials.

What happens next: The legal view will be presented informally at the next session by staff and the attorney, and the Attorney General's office said it would put its short opinion in writing if the commission asks for a formal advisory opinion. Commissioners signaled they want clearer briefing documentation ahead of substantive debate on the gillnet closure.